Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Volume III, China, Microfiche Supplement

617. Telegram 1930 from Geneva¹

Geneva, May 24, 1956, 8 p.m.

1930. From Johnson.

1. Wang opened 48th today prepared statement: Their side made many efforts since beginning talks on issuance declaration. However it clear US side still bent requiring abandonment China sovereign rights freezing status quo Taiwan area. This what they could never accept. My draft April 19 apparently designed induce them acquiesce unreasonable demand. As he repeatedly told me they absolutely could not accept draft.

2. Wang said their May 11 met common requirements both sides. Entirely reasonable and represented further important effort their side make progress. No amount terms used by me such as ambiguous retrogression could degrade that draft their side.

3. Wang said first para introduces principle mutual respect territorial integrity sovereignty non-interference internal affairs, which recognized by all peace-loving states. This replaced self-defense clause my draft which embodied ulterior motive justifying continued seizure Taiwan interference, liberation offshore islands. This amendment undoubtedly puts draft on firmer basis. Would have thought US could not stand against that amendment for if so we would make people suspect our aim precisely to seek continued seizure Taiwan interference liberation offshore islands. How could we expect this position accepted their side?

4. Wang said 2nd para it even more conspicuous their side accommodating US views in making principle peaceful settlement disputes without resort threat use force specifically apply Taiwan area. This specific provision new draft accommodation my repeated requests. However I ambiguously raised so-called question “elsewhere”. He found it hard follow my logic. Perhaps I could suggest some real not imaginary dispute where China US faced each other as parties international dispute, which even graver than Taiwan area dispute.

5. Wang said 3rd para specified practical feasible means settlement disputes two countries Taiwan area should be decided within two months, and specific arrangements this para should be acceptable both sides. He had all along understood I never opposed holding FMC for settlement disputes.

6. Wang said at last meeting I indicated did not desire perpetuate dangerous situation Taiwan area. If so why oppose time limit? Must two of us sit here go on talking without end?

7. Wang said at last meeting I also alleged new draft constituted retrogression from Dec 1 draft. He failed see basis that allegation. I would certainly recall his remarks 39th meeting. What he said was if we desired have reference Taiwan must also agree specific reference FMC. Otherwise their side left without assurance. Reference FMC in May 11 could not be obscured.

8. Wang said he sure he made thoroughly clear only new draft reasonable accommodation position both sides. Would hope I could reach agreement with him on May 11 draft. Now let us stall no longer.

9. I replied as had said in past mtgs fundamental issue now facing us was whether his government willing renounce use force Taiwan area as well as elsewhere as first step toward peaceful discussion.

10. I said this did not mean renounce use force for limited period such as two months, but without time limit. Not to renounce use force only on condition there be some particular single form negotiations agreed on such as FMC but rather seek peaceful settlement disputes. Not renounce use force only on condition disputes invariably settled entirely on ones own terms, on failure which one held self free renew threat force. Rather as had all responsible govts, agree abide by processes and results peaceful settlement. To do so did not require one acquiesce or agree policies or views of others any more than when others had done so they had acquiesced or agreed with policies of other party with which they did not agree.

11. I said I had hoped his govt accepted those principles. Since last October had been seeking his agreement statement clearly saying nothing more less than this. I been making every effort go far as possibly could meeting his point view without violating this fundamental universal principle. I accepted his Dec 1 as basis negotiation and offered successive suggestions to accomplish purpose.

12. I said it been and will remain my consistent unalterable objective obtain agreement between us on unconditional renunciation force unambiguously applicable Taiwan area as well as elsewhere. Been doing this not from standpoint vague theory but standpoint stark fact that one party these discussions asserting right use and even threatening initiate use force that area. Neither his statements here this morning nor previous statement nor draft May 11 reassured me this did not continue be case.

13. I said near close last meeting it my recollection that in discussing Taiwan area he referred what he called preparations his country for use force. Hoped he would correct me if had drawn wrong inference from statement. However, if understood his position correctly, his govt not only asserted in principle it free use force in order obtain solution meeting unilateral desires but it in fact preparing use force accomplish this purpose.

14. I said such assertion shocking any context but in context new draft even more disturbing representing no slightest advance from position his govt taken prior talks. In fact seemed rather be retrogression from position his Prime Minister Bandung conference.

15. I said I regretted in his remarks morning he done nothing clarify implication this effect contained even his May 11. It difficult not to read into last para his May 11 implication threat in insisting therein two month’s time limit on talks. He seemed be saying that draft that if within two month’s time limit no agreement completely satisfactory him reached these talks he free resort force. He seemed be saying if no resolution our disputes his terms reached in negotiations mentioned therein he held self free renew threat force. It certainly self-contradictory for him say desired peaceful negotiation settlement and at same time thus maintain threat force.

16. He said question between us therefore whether his govt willing unambiguously unconditionally renounce force settlement disputes or whether it still reserving self right threaten use force. Taken in context his May 11 could not but read into last para that draft particularly time limit set forth therein meaning that his govt reserving self threat use force. Most earnestly hope this not case and that he could morning clear up this point. Did not feel his previous statement done so.

17. Wang said could not agree points I just raised. Stark fact between China-US which also fundamental issue between them was US already used force against China occupied territory Taiwan. That indisputable fact not imaginary. It solely this issue between two countries that hindered normal relations.

18. Wang said in dealing this issue there might be various methods. It their Prime Minister who at Bandung proposed holding talks China US. There he proposed our two countries sit down hold negotiations reach peaceful settlement. Today they joined with US in peaceful discussions. This precisely demonstrated peaceful intentions their part.

19. Wang said in course talks I incessantly alleged China planning use force against US. Doing so I disregarded fact US already used force against China thus using imaginary argument defense my position.

20. Wang said Chinese people would never permit or agree to action US using force against China occupying its territory. Fact was today it not question China’s forces occupying territory US. If Chinese forces occupied US territory US would equally not tolerate such action. No country would tolerate use force against sovereign state.

21. Wang said peaceful settlement disputes China US specifically demonstrated in question issuance declaration. It their side which successively made offers accommodating joint desires both sides. They had specified principle mutual respect sovereignty territorial integrity. They proposed principle peaceful settlement disputes China US specifically apply Taiwan area. Even more concretely they suggested seek practical feasible means settlement disputes two countries within definite time in order not allow long stalling.

22. Wang said if both sides have common desire peaceful settlement should not be difficult reach agreement this basis. Today we should direct main efforts to try make such declaration thus showing sincerity. Should not engage in discussion irrelevant questions which outside text itself. This essential feature their May 11 draft.

23. I replied had continued hope he would not introduce matters irrelevant immediate issue before us which was declaration renunciation force. I had consistently avoided doing so. As had often said question this stage not discuss merits disputes. That could come after we unambiguously and unconditionally agreed we not going war about them.

24. I said as we both recognized we had different views regarding nature [garble] disputes particularly Taiwan area. He persistently made such unfounded statements as that US already used force against them and US occupying Taiwan. Here and in his drafts he seemed persistent intention have me accept that point view. It false and world knew it false.

25. I said facts are Taiwan lawfully held by government with which US long relations and which recognized by majority governments world. US had solemn treaty arrangements that government arrangements which registered with UN and which free and open for all world see.

26. I said however question at present stage not one of reconciling our points view. Question was whether our difference views be permitted lead war. US determined should not do so, had continued hope his government would share that determination. I said he had often spoken here and his govt often spoken of peaceful negotiations and desire peaceful settlement. Genuine desire peaceful settlement not demonstrated by numbers drafts one submitted in negotiation but demonstrated by whether one really abandons threat use force settlement desputes. It one thing make statement one desires peaceful settlement or peaceful negotiations and another thing say one will not use force settlement disputes. First empty without second.

27. I said he said could not agree with points I raised morning. Most fundamental point I raised was that in last paragraph his draft he reserving self ability again threaten use force. If he could not agree that assertion my part would appreciate his telling me in what respect I wrong.

28. Wang replied he already stated their fundamental point view nature origin dispute between two countries. Had repeatedly pointed out present issue between us was US already used force against his country and used its forces occupy Chinese territory. I had said this unfounded allegation. Might he ask whether US forces now Taiwan dropped from sky or rose from sea?

29. Wang said I had made reference Chiang Kai-shek clique Taiwan however I could not use this defend position I holding. In similar case when during Sino-Japanese War Japan created puppet regime Wang Ching-wei but Japanese could not justify their stand either. These were facts which could not be distorted in eyes people world.

30. Wang said I had also remarked I did not desire go war settle disputes between two countries. He felt this very reason why we now meeting here discussing issuance declaration this effect. If both us willing settle disputes peaceful means without going war or threat war should demonstrate desire by concrete deeds and rapidly reach agreement on joint declaration.

31. Wang said I had made repeated references last para their draft. In light this, might he understand we agreed on first second paras their draft and only part remaining in question was last para? He would hope I able enlighten him this respect so we could proceed speedily with declaration.

32. I replied he had said if we both willing settle disputes without going war or threat war should demonstrate desire by concrete deeds. That precisely been my point ever since last October. That precisely step his government continued avoid taking.

33. I said first fundamental concrete deed was unequivocal unconditional unambiguous statement we not going war. Other words, renunciation force. That what his govt continued avoid doing in May 11 draft.

34. I said had spoken of last para that draft because that where this intent appeared most glaring. It appeared to be renunciation force for two month period. That like saying “I will not shoot at you for two months but if at end two months you not agreed with me I will shoot you.” Such position I could only describe as grotesque if presented as renunciation force. It rather made it threat force. As I had pointed out appeared me in complete contradiction with assertion desire peaceful negotiation settlement. Still hoped he could clear up contradiction.

35. Wang said if both us had sincerity in adopting May 11 draft would be important step accelerating settlement disputes two countries. Would then be able show world talks we been conducting not idle but had concrete content. Would be able show world two countries genuinely sincere in desire settle disputes between them peaceful means.

36. Wang said world would certainly welcome gesture two countries expressing resolve settle grave disputes between them peaceful means. World would see our two countries not only expressed desire settle disputes but also adopted concrete steps toward this end. Announcement this declaration would only have these good effects. Would not raise doubt in connection other issues. People would welcome time limit, would not have doubts about it.

37. Wang said we had talked nearly year. Setting time limit in declaration would all more demonstrate to US genuinely sincere desire settle problem. Only those who willing express desire settle peacefully disputes but without intention taking concrete step would oppose such specification. He therefore felt inclusion time limit would only help resolve problem, would not prevent from doing so.

38. I replied desirable though might be public gesture without real content could exacerbate rather than assist settlement differences. US interested in genuine peaceful settlement differences. It exactly because this I sent here. Exactly because this I proposed as first step we make clear going settle those differences without war. I still waited for his govt take that first step. That step and only it could demonstrate world who genuinely seeking peaceful settlement.

39. I said regretted he continued avoid specific reply questions I raised—questions regarding time limit on declaration set forth his May 11.

40. Wang recalled it his country at Bandung last year made proposal peaceful settlement disputes two countries. It his country which voiced this peaceful intention as early as Bandung last year.

41. Wang said it nearly one year since two us began discussion peaceful settlement disputes between two sides. This fact demonstrated their side been amply patient in search for settlement. By this time we should be able embody efforts toward peaceful settlement in declaration. Provided there sincere intention for peaceful settlement two month’s time limit quite sufficient for our endeavors. This would prevent further delay settlement our practical issues. He felt US equally interested in and in need of expeditious settlement disputes two countries Taiwan area and avoidance further stalling.

42. Wang recalled I had told him my side did not desire perpetuate present situation Taiwan area. Therefore inclusion time limit in interests both sides.

43. I asked what was effect declaration if at end two months period agreement not been reached between us. Did he consider self at end that period again free threaten use force? Or actually to use force?

44. Wang did not feel question I raised was thing to discuss at present stage. We now discussing declaration, seeking of practical feasible means following announcement declaration. What we now discussing was peaceful settlement disputes two countries. These were things should now seek. If even prior announcement declaration and even before seeking practical feasible means we began discuss question I had raised would be idle and diffuse.

45. Wang said at present we could not predict whether after two months US still would continue threaten use force against China forces occupation Taiwan. At this stage he did not intend raise this question.

46. I replied it US that proposed uncondititional unlimited renunciation use force. US not proposed it be qualified by time limit or any other way. He had spoken of “expeditious” settlement. I thought we both would recall last Sept we discussing time limits and “expeditious” in other connection. Still seems our understanding that term vastly differs.

47. I said US did not desire perpetuate situation Taiwan area where threat force by one side could plunge two countries and world into conflict. This precisely been point my proposal and discussion, that we first make clear we not permit this happen. Once that done could undertake search for peaceful methods resolving dispute that area. I still awaited and had awaited almost nine months genuine indication his govt willing take that first step. I continued hope not only for sake negotiations here but for sake two countries and peoples it would take that step. Hoped it would do so without reservation purpose evasion, as my govt willing do.

48. Wang said if we had desire peaceful settlement should concretely demonstrate by reaching agreement and making declaration. I had said my side also had same desire peaceful settlement. If so, why not get together on common desire and try reach agreement on language express this common desire?

49. Wang said would not assist discussions in any way to engage idle talk or depart from question-making declaration. Would appreciate my telling him whether had any other opinions on May 11 draft.

50. I said if he willing unequivocally unconditionally renounce force in settlement dispute and also same time express determination seek peaceful settlement I not able think any clearer way this could be done, in form meets both points view than that contained my April 19 revision his December 1.

51. I said for reasons I had set forth did not believe that purpose in any sense accomplished by May 11 draft. I still believed that draft step backwards from what I thought we been able accomplish. Would hope at next meeting he would realize this and we be able take steps marking progress.

52. I regretted to say I did not feel position he had taken today enabled us make progress. If he willing unconditionally renounce force settlement disputes I satisfied progress could be made.

53. Wang said he also, in reference remark I just made, disappointed. My remarks did not seem help in progress on declaration. If I still clung April 19 draft he could only consider deliberate hindrance in discussions. He continued hope I would change my stand. He continued hope I would be able offer constructive opinions basis May 11 draft. By doing so would enable us speedily reach agreement on declaration. Should not stall on this matter. Otherwise they would consider making draft open to public and letting public judge whether draft reasonable. He hoped we be able rapidly progress this question.

54. I said if he nothing further would like note, although it five years from time he made original application for exit Wang’s country, and although it almost nine months since Wang told me here would be able leave in period two-three months, Charles Miner arrived Hong Kong May 19. However, I nevertheless gratified he finally able leave. Would hope this indicates remaining Americans detained his country shortly be following.

55. Wang said as he told me soon as unsettled affairs Miner settled he able leave country, his exit now proved this was so. Miner had settled unsettled affairs and now left country. Time taken in departure not entirely fault Chinese authorities.

56. I said had nothing more, suggested next Thursday May 31. Wang agreed.

Gowen

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.93/5–2456. Confidential; Limited Distribution.